Federal Court of Australia
may"
Practice and Procedure - security for costs - availability of sub-s.533(1) of Companies (Western Australia) Code in Federal Court - relevant considerations in exercise of court's discretion - probability of success - whether respondent cause of applicant's
impecuniosity - delay
Federal Court Rules 0.28 Companies (Western Australia) Code s.533
CARUSO AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. v. PORTEC (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.
No. WA G29 of 1983
TOOHEY J. PERTH 30 MARCH 1984
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
No. WA G29 of 1983
BETWEEN:
CARUSO AUSTRALIA PLY. LTD.
Applicant
and
PORTEC (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.
Respondent
PORTEC (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.
Cross-Applicant and
CARUSO AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
Cross-—Respondent
Q RD E R
JUDGE MAKING ORDER Toohey J.
DATE OF ORDER 30 March 1984
WHERE MADE Perth
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant give security in the amount of $25,000 for the costs of the respondent of and
incidental to these proceedings, in a form to be agreed by the parties and, in default of
agreement, to be determined by the Court.
Further proceedings on the applicant's against the respondent be stayed
security is provided. Liberty be reserved to either party to generally, upon 7 days notice to the
party.
All questions of costs be reserved.
claim
until
apply
other
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
No. WA G29 of 1983
BETWEEN:
CARUSO AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. Applicant
and
PORTEC (AUSTRALIA) PITY. LTD.
Respondent
PORTEC (AUSTRALIA) PTY, LTD.
Cross-Applicant and CARUSO AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
Cross-Respondent
CORAM: TOOHEY J.
30 March 1984
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
By this motion the respondent seeks an order that the applicant provide security for the respondent's costs of the
application.
The applicant ais an earcthmoving contractor. In November 1982 it entered into a contract with the Commissioner of Main Roads for the supply of large quantities of aggregate. To enable the applicant to perform the contract the respondent agreed to design and provide an integrated rock crushing plant. The applicant claims that the plant was unable to provide the quantities warranted and was otherwise unsuitable. Relying upon provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and associated causes
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate